Search

Background: Efforts to appropriately utilize laboratory tests have been underway for several decades. However, limited information is available regarding the status of laboratory stewardship at academic medical centers. Prior to initiating a laboratory stewardship committee, a study was initiated to gain insights from peer institutions., Methods: An online REDCap survey was created and emailed to US pathology department leaders at 94 academic medical centers., Results: Response rate was 40%. Sixty-eight percent (n = 26) of respondents indicated that they have a laboratory stewardship committee. There was variability among academic medical institutions regarding governance, committee structure and responsibilities, and assessment of laboratory stewardship committee performance. There was consensus for inclusion of: hospital administration and clinical leadership; informatics (IT) support, and a multidisciplinary clinical team combined with laboratory medicine expertise. Of the 32% (n = 12) without a committee, 4 started one but found it unsustainable, and 6 were unsuccessful at starting a program. Respondents without a current laboratory stewardship program cited lack of leadership support, insufficient management and IT resources, and unclear vision and goals as major factors. Fifty-eight percent of those without a laboratory stewardship committee predicted their hospital would establish one within the next 5 years., Conclusions: Survey results provide insights into the status of laboratory stewardship efforts at peer institutions. Awareness of the structural and leadership components critical to successful and sustained initiatives will improve the quality and value of clinical laboratory services., (© Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine 2025. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: The flow cytometric evaluation of peripheral lymphocytosis has led to a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). Few studies exist to better delineate the natural history and differences between MBL and CLL., Methods: Applying the recently updated B-lymphocyte threshold of 5 × 10(9) B lymphocytes/L for the diagnosis of CLL, we evaluated the differences in initial presentation, disease progression, time to treatment (TTT), and 10-year overall survival rates between patients with less than 5 × 10 × 10(9)/L, 5 to 10 × 10(9)/L, and more than 10 × 10(9)/L B cells. These clinical/treatment parameters were also compared among the MBL, 5 to 10 CLL Rai stage 0, and more than 10 CLL Rai stage 0 groups., Results: In total, 310 patients were included, with 67 in the less than 5, 75 in the 5 to 10, and 168 in the more than 10 B-cell groups. Statistically significant differences were seen when comparing the 5 to 10 and more than 10 B-cell groups regarding anemia (P = .021 for median hemoglobin; P = .028 for anemia <11 g/dL), platelet count (P = .041 for median platelet count), splenomegaly (P = .013), initial management plan (P = .012 for observation; P = .0021 for treatment with chemotherapy), and TTT (P = .0033). No statistically significant difference was seen among the MBL, 5 to 10, and more than 10 CLL Rai stage 0 groups regarding TTT and 10-year overall survival., Conclusions: Findings suggest that patients with B-cell counts of 5 to 10 × 10(9)/L behave clinically more similar to patients with B-cell counts of less than 5 × 10(9)/L., (Copyright© by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.)

Background: The relationship between racial and socioeconomic status (SES) disparities and the quality of epithelial ovarian cancer care and survival outcome are unclear., Methods: A population-based analysis of National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records for invasive primary epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed in the period from 1998 to 2002 was done using data from patients classified as white or black. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline care was defined by stage-appropriate surgical procedures and recommended chemotherapy. The main outcome measures were differences in adherence to NCCN guidelines and overall survival according to race and SES and were analyzed using binomial logistic regression and multilevel survival analysis., Results: A total of 47 160 patients (white = 43 995; black = 3165) were identified. Non-NCCN-guideline-adherent care was an independent predictor of inferior overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 1.47). Demographic characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of not receiving NCCN guideline-adherent care were black race (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.48), Medicare payer status (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.28), and not insured payer status (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.49). After controlling for disease and treatment-related variables, independent racial and SES predictors of survival were black race (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.36), Medicaid payer status (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.38), not insured payer status (HR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.44), and median household income less than $35 000 (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.11)., Conclusions: These data highlight statistically and clinically significant disparities in the quality of ovarian cancer care and overall survival, independent of NCCN guidelines, along racial and SES parameters. Increased efforts are needed to more precisely define the patient, provider, health-care system, and societal factors leading to these observed disparities and guide targeted interventions.